Brussels, 08/09/2011 (Agence Europe) - A judgment of the EU Court of Justice on Thursday 8 September questions, without causing too much emotion, France's safeguard clause on the genetically modified maize, MON 810, not because of the substance of the clause but because of its mistaken legal basis (Article 23 of Directive 2001/18/EC should have been used instead of emergency regulation measures 1829/2003 - see related article in this bulletin). The moderate satisfaction of those in favour of GMOs is equal to the disappointment felt by those opposed to GMOs, although the latter do not believe they have lost the battle as France will be able to review its ban and, where necessary, take emergency measures on condition that these are first notified to the European Commission. The Commission displayed nothing but neutrality, announcing that it will carry out the analysis of this ruling but specifies that it concerns a Franco-French matter and is not, therefore, of a kind that will have an impact on European GMO policy.
When invited by the press to comment on the ruling, Frédéric Vincent, the spokesman for John Dalli, European Health and Consumer Policy Commissioner, said: “It was not the Commission that brought France before the Court of Justice. Companies concerned in France referred the matter to the French courts, and the State Council raised the matter before the Court of Justice. It is a ruling that allows things to be clarified. It recalls the procedure whereby a member state may take out a safeguard clause. Now, this ruling will be sent before the State Council which will draw the consequences as regards the safeguard clause on MON 810 in France. One must remember that the European procedure on MON 810 and France (aimed at compelling France to lift its safeguard clause) has never been taken to completion. It was blocked in permanent committee (Ed: Coreper). It did not get as far as the Council. It is now up to the French justice system to deal with the dossier in order to say whether, or not, France should bring the safeguard clause back up for discussion” under European Regulation 1829/2003 concerning genetically modified foodstuffs and feed. Safeguard measures may be invoked by a member state when questions are raised concerning the impact on human and animal health and on the environment and when the existence of a clear and serious risk can be scientifically demonstrated.
Having failed to impose on France the lifting of safeguard measures on MON 810, as on the six other member states that ban crops of this genetically modified variety on their soil (Germany, Austria, Greece, Hungary, Luxembourg and Bulgaria), the Commission will not seek, under this CJEU ruling, to resume the fight. And for very good reason: - the Commission's response to this specific problem of safeguard clause was a political response, as explained by the spokesman citing the proposal for a regulation presented in July 2010 with a view to authorising member states to restrict or ban GMO crops on their territory, authorised at EU level for motives other than environment or health. This proposal is still being discussed at the level of the Council and Parliament (see EUROPE 10357).
Greenpeace takes the view that the matter is far from lost as the Court's ruling contests the safeguard measure taken by Paris (decided in February 2008) on technicality alone. “Monsanto based this case on a technicality, which does not change the fact that France and the six other countries banning MON 810 have the legal right to do so, given the scientific concerns about the crop's safety. We urge France to improve the legal details of its ban as soon as possible”, said Stefanie Hundsdorfer, Political Advisor of the Greenpeace office at the EU.
The bio-industry side sets out quite a different argument. Europabio considers that the “Court's judgment is a step towards choice in Europe. French farmers should no longer be denied the choice to use this GM maize”. The association underlines that the ruling confirms the validity of the arguments raised by French farmers and seed companies to challenge the technical validity of the measures of the French government which, after having authorised the crop, had suspended it in 2007 (pending renewed authorisation), before going on to ban it. Europabio also observes that, during the last 15 years, “this GM maize has been cultivated worldwide and has proven agronomic, economic and environmental benefits. Its safety has been consistently confirmed”. Carel de Marchie Sarvaas, Director of Green Biotechnology Europe, states: “The European Court of Justice has given a clear verdict today: EU member states cannot ban GM based on myths and hearsay. In fact, French farmers had three years of experience planting GM crops prior to this ban. European scientists have shown again and again that GM crops pose no risk to health or the environment.” (A.N./transl.jl)